Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been

[Zzyzx]

.
Has the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" been convincingly substantiated?

One of the members has repeatedly referred to his research as demonstrating that there are seven accounts by eyewitnesses to the proposed empty tomb.

Has he demonstrated to your satisfaction that:

1) The accounts are actually from eyewitnesses?

2) The stories about eyewitness accounts are true and accurate?

3) His proposals are taken seriously by scholars and theologians (or debaters on various websites)?

4) There was a tomb and it was empty?

[Korah]

I am willing to debate the "Seven written eyewitness accounts" in Head to Head sub-forum with strict adherence to Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines.

You made a similar offer before, along with additional conditions. I replied that I would love such a debate, just not with you. Since then there have been other occasions in which I have been perplexed as to how to continue a discussion with an Ignostic. I guess our presuppositions are too different to mesh.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Korah]

I will debate you then. I only ask thay we adhere to the rules of the forum, which seems fair.

As I said earlier whether intentional or not because your tgesis is not widely accepted among theologins and historians injecting it into any argument nessecitates that it be discussed adf not the topic.

In the other thread "how can we determine which parts of scripture are true" we can roll with the assumption your thesis would be true and it would still have no bearing on the subject. Hence it was needlessly inserted.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 21 by DanieltheDragon]
I don't understand your reply. That does not bode well for a formal debate.
Hopefully you're saying you will debate me on "How do we determine which parts of scripture are true?", discussing the seven posts there that I list at #155.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Korah]

Typed from a cell phone laptop is at home.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am willing to debate the "Seven written eyewitness accounts" in Head to Head sub-forum with strict adherence to Forum Rules and C&A Guidelines.

You made a similar offer before, along with additional conditions. I replied that I would love such a debate, just not with you.

My mention of a H2H debate is intended as a challenge rather than an offer. It is not surprising that you would decline

It will be interesting to see how you fare in debate with Daniel.

Since then there have been other occasions in which I have been perplexed as to how to continue a discussion with an Ignostic.

The most effective way to engage in discussion or debate with anyone (including Ignostics) is to present evidence and substantiation from wide-ranging, disconnected sources to verify one's claims.

BTW " careful reading of my signature does NOT identify me as Ignostic " but as Non-Theist "tending toward Ignosticism." Perhaps that is too complicated for some?

I guess our presuppositions are too different to mesh.

Exactly what "presuppositions" do you credit to me (erroneously most likely).

Perhaps an unbridgeable difference is that I require that claims, stories, ideas be verifiable " testable for truth and accuracy " by anyone interested and motivated.

Those who accept unverifiable opinions, testimonials, tales, folklore, legends, etc seem to resent my "SHOW me that what you say is true and accurate " show how I can verify for myself." I'm not going to take your word for it (or "his" word, or ancient unverifiable tales).

[Korah]

My mention of a H2H debate is intended as a challenge rather than an offer. It is not surprising that you would decline.

Again you use this jury-rigged thread to communicate with me. If I had not had reason before, this slanted thread gives proof that I cannot expect to interact fairly with you.

Meanwhile Post #155 remains over on the proper thread. listing the posts where I present my seven gospel eyewitnesses. Obviously they are not easy to refute, so you just dismiss them all as "bunkum", citing no proof. No one anywhere has even cited any publication that refutes me or the key scholar I rely on, Howard M. Teeple (for the sources, not for the eyewitness reasoning).
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=150

[Zzyzx]

.

My mention of a H2H debate is intended as a challenge rather than an offer. It is not surprising that you would decline.

Again you use this jury-rigged thread to communicate with me.

What, exactly, constitutes a "jury-rigged thread?"

I posted this thread to discover if the claim of "Seven eyewitness accounts" has been convincingly substantiated " NOT to communicate with you. However, you might learn something from the poll " ten of ten saying that the claim has NOT been convincingly substantiated.

If I had not had reason before, this slanted thread gives proof that I cannot expect to interact fairly with you.

It is not surprising that you cite "good" reasons to decline my challenge.

I observe (and trust that readers realize) that sometimes good reasons are presented in lieu of real reasons.

Meanwhile Post #155 remains over on the proper thread. listing the posts where I present my seven gospel eyewitnesses. Obviously they are not easy to refute,

I stand ready to dispute your claims in a Head to Head debate but you seem hesitant to engage (fearing "unfairness" supposedly).

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to Korah]

sigh. I stopped bothering to chase the post because after compiling it together in some semblance of order, reading it, I find it filled with conjecture and wishful thinking.

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the hero god is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just oneRomulus 771 BCE. In Plutarchs biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romuluss body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, for he had risen to join the gods. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but some doubted. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus on the road between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, why have you abandoned us?, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Does any of this ring any bells? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.

Work cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

So in closing, not only does the fact stand that no one who wrote of jesus actually knew him, but the historicity of jesus is now under close scrutiny as well.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 27 by goodwithoutgod]
You did right, at least,
To cite Carrier, who just this year came up with a Mythical Jesus theory that finally has some scholarly credibility.

Other than that, your post totally fails to counter a single one of my seven eyewitnesses who wrote about Jesus. It is simply, absolutely NOT A FACT that we know that no one who knew Jesus wrote about him. Please stop repeating this falsehood (unless of course you can REFUTE each of the seven eyewitnesses). My eyewitnesses as presented in my Thesis did not write about the virgin birth, the Incarnation, or the Resurrection. Your cited myths are completely inapplicable.
Edited to add:
I remind that you had initially stated that you would be willing to investigate my claimed eyewitnesses, confident that you would have already refuted anything I might have written. I'm pleased to see you have dropped that latter claim, but you have not yet followed through on discussing any of my seven posts.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Korah]

I am sorry does his position not refute each of your seven eyewitness?

Also Luke in his opening lines admits he is not an eyewitness. Why do you include him as an eyewitness?